Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from an inspection conducted on 02.07.2020 by the second respondent, acting under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, at the appellant's commercial warehouse in Bengaluru. The appellant, ITC Limited, a company engaged in stationery items under the brand Classmate, was found with 7600 CFCs/packages of Classmate exercise books which the inspecting authority alleged violated Rule 24(a) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, punishable under Section 36(1) of the 2009 Act. Seizure and compounding notices, both dated 02.07.2020, were issued. Aggrieved by the absence of a search warrant and alleged non-compliance with Sections 100(4) and 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.8954 of 2020 before the Karnataka High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of the notices and release of the goods. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashed the notices, and directed release, holding that the search and seizure were without jurisdiction. The respondents preferred Writ Appeal No.572 of 2020; the Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the Single Judge's order on 15.04.2021, holding that no search warrant was required under Section 15 and that the authority was empowered to inspect, search and seize. The appellant then filed SLP (C) No.16830 of 2021 and also sought review, which was dismissed on 10.08.2022, leading to SLP (C) No.18336 of 2022. Both SLPs were tagged by this Court's order dated 04.11.2022 and heard together. The principal legal issue was whether the inspection and seizure without a prior warrant was unlawful and violative of natural justice, justifying writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The appellant argued that the CFCs were not wholesale packages, that Section 15 required prior reasons to believe which were not recorded, that Section 100(4) CrPC required two independent witnesses but only one departmental driver was present, that the warehouse was not open to public and hence a warrant was required, and that principles of natural justice were violated by simultaneous seizure and compounding notices. The respondent argued that the Legal Metrology Act mandated declarations for consumer protection, that the warehouse was a place of business, that CrPC procedural safeguards applied only to the extent applicable, that the action was an inspection not a search, and that the appellant had an alternative statutory remedy under Section 50. The court extracted Section 15 of the 2009 Act, which empowers the Director, Controller or legal metrology officer to enter, search, inspect and seize if he has reason to believe that an offence has been or is likely to be committed. The available text ends with the extraction of Section 15 and does not include the court's final reasoning or operative order; hence the final decision is not mentioned in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Inspection and Seizure - Requirement of Search Warrant - Legal Metrology Act, 2009, Section 15; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 100(4), 165 - The appellant contended that search and seizure without a prior warrant and non-compliance with Section 100(4) CrPC vitiated the seizure; the respondent argued that Section 15 empowered inspection, search and seizure without warrant and that CrPC provisions applied only to the extent applicable - The court was called upon to decide whether the absence of a prior warrant rendered the action unlawful (Paras 7.2, 8.3, 10-11). B) Statutory Interpretation - Meaning of Wholesale Packages - Applicability of Rule 24 - Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, Rules 2(l), 24(a) - The appellant argued that corrugated fibreboard containers were not wholesale packages but protective packaging for transportation; the respondent argued they fell within the definition of wholesale packages and required mandatory declarations directly printed on the package - The legality of the seizure depended on whether the containers required declarations under Rule 24(a) (Paras 7, 8.4). C) Natural Justice - Simultaneous Seizure and Compounding Notices - Violation of Audi Alteram Partem - Legal Metrology Act, 2009, Sections 15, 48 - The appellant alleged that simultaneous issuance of seizure and compounding notices without hearing violated natural justice and showed non-application of mind; the respondent denied any violation and claimed reasonable opportunity was afforded - The court considered whether the procedure was fair (Paras 7.1, 7.5, 8.7). D) Constitutional Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Alternative Statutory Remedy - Constitution of India, Article 226; Legal Metrology Act, 2009, Section 50 - The Single Judge held the writ petition maintainable because the action was without jurisdiction; the Division Bench held it was not maintainable absent violation of natural justice; the respondent argued Section 50 provided an efficacious statutory remedy, while the appellant contended jurisdictional illegality justified direct invocation of writ jurisdiction - The court examined the interplay between alternative remedy and jurisdictional challenge (Paras 7.4, 8.7). E) Criminal Procedure - Independent Witnesses for Search - Presence of Departmental Driver - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 100(4) - The appellant argued that the sole witness was a driver employed by the respondent and hence not independent; the respondent submitted that the action was an inspection, not a search, so two independent witnesses were not mandatory - The court considered whether Section 100(4) applied to inspections under the Legal Metrology Act (Paras 7.2, 8.6). F) Legal Metrology - Definition of Premises - Open vs Closed Premises - Legal Metrology Act, 2009, Section 2(n) - The appellant contended the warehouse was restricted and required a warrant; the respondent contended it was a place of business open to others and no warrant was needed; the Division Bench distinguished between open and closed premises - The court considered whether Section 2(n) supported that distinction (Paras 7.3, 8.2). G) Legal Metrology - Reasons to Believe - Precondition for Inspection - Legal Metrology Act, 2009, Section 15 - The appellant claimed the seizure receipt and compounding notice did not disclose any recorded reasons; the respondent argued the seizure notice set out the nature of the offence and grounds - The court examined whether the statutory precondition of reasons to believe was satisfied (Paras 7.1, 8.3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the inspection and seizure conducted under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 without a prior warrant was unlawful and violative of natural justice, thereby justifying invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Law Points
- Section 15 of Legal Metrology Act
- 2009 empowers Director
- Controller or legal metrology officer to enter
- search
- inspect and seize if he has reason to believe
- Section 15(4) incorporates provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973 only to the extent applicable
- Rule 24(a) of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules
- 2011 requires declarations on wholesale packages
- Rule 2(l) defines wholesale packages
- Section 100(4) CrPC requires two or more independent witnesses for searches
- Section 102 CrPC permits seizure without warrant in certain conditions
- Section 50 of Legal Metrology Act provides statutory appeal
- Article 226 of Constitution permits writ where action is without jurisdiction or violates natural justice.
